Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodruffw | Hacker News Reader

Weird phrasing. It isn't clear that responding to OFAC listings makes one a "partner" of the FBI or Secret Service; to my knowledge, entities that do business in the US (or anywhere the US's financial limbs can reach) have to respond to OFAC listings.

Am I missing something here?

View on HN

I think it relates to this quote from the article:

"Tether is grateful for the opportunity to address the concerns raised by U.S. lawmakers, and we are committed to continuing Tether’s close work with law enforcement in the U.S. and globally. Tether seeks to be a world class partner to the U.S. as we continue to assist law enforcement and expand dollar hegemony globally."

~ a dedication to working together in the future

Which is itself a weird phrasing. OFAC compliance is an obligation, not an "opportunity".

Perhaps "the opportunity to address the concerns" is in contrast to being shut down with no opportunity for corrective action.

Kinda like someone released on parole is happy for an opportunity to work and obey the law.

Still not a partnership. Tether spin.

obviously spin, but "partnership" doesn't bother me much. Partnership doesnt mean equal partners. Someone might have a business "partnership" with a warlord, that lets them live as long as you prive payments.

> Partnership doesnt mean equal partners.

It still implies some sort of meeting of the minds. You wouldn't say you've entered a "partnership" with the IRS because you paid your taxes, nor a "partnership" with the police because they pulled you over and searched your car.

"I'm excited to work with the Philadelphia Police Department in our new partnership and am thankful they agreed to negotiate yet another meeting with the parole board after I helpfully divulge where I hid more of the remaining bodies."

You really do catch more flies with honey.

They have absolutely no power in the relationship. It's do as legislated/court ordered, or pain.

If there is 0 control over things, it's not a partnership.

Yes, they don't have any power. That doesn't prevent them from presenting it like they are eagerly collaborating. And why not? Nobody wants to piss off federal government or the Congress, it's better to show they love it.

Err.. except the environment they exist in - 'crypto' - tends to be full of anti-gov/3letteragency types, so you'd think this is a bad PR angle to take.

At a guess, I would say this is more flagging to their real customers that their funds aren't safu...

Don't confuse the reddit/twitter crowd with the businesses dealing with billions of dollars. The latter can not survive - or at least can not operate in any way that is connected to the US financial system or touching it in any form - if they don't play nice with regulators like OFAC. They could be all ancaps in the depths of their souls, but if they don't play nice, they'd end up in jail. It's not dependent in any way on their politics or the strength of their convictions - it's just how it is when you're dealing with the financial markets. You can be as anti-government as you want, but if you do what the regulators consider money laundering, either you stop it immediately when they tell you (or before), or you will get shut down. If they are not getting shut down, then they are likely cooperating, there's not much other options.

You missed my point. Just because it's in a statement that they made in no way means we need to interpret it as anything but a meaningless attempt to convey to the government they are more than cooperative.

Think about it... My fake example takes it to the extreme and portrays it as a serial killer sending a statement to the police department on how excited they are to help them find more of their victims' bodies. Obviously, it's not really a "partnership". Saying it's a partnership is just an attempt by the serial killer to reframe the situation in a way that implies civility and cooperative pursuit of mutual benefit. As if they are being employed by the police department. In reality, they are a serial killer withholding information in hopes of getting a chance at leniency. We are literally saying the same thing.

Of course it's spin. What else could they say? "we keep having to respond to your damn emails"?

Business is business. They are proactive in selling their service to the government.

In lay men’s terms this is called ass kissing.

Corpspeak for "we follow the laws, please don't shut us down or fine us, we're the good guys".

I mean, basically you're correct, but they are claiming that they don't have to be pulled kicking and screaming into compliance, but rather they are easy for law enforcement to work with.

In other words, please don't let the SEC find an excuse to go after us.

To me, it's oddly reminiscent of SBF testifying to Congress that they were the responsible ones who are in favor of regulation on crypto, in order to polish their image as a reputable financial institution. Doesn't mean they're going to end up like SBF (or CZ), but it does reveal similar motivations.

I dont think they will end up like cz, they are one of the biggest buyers of government bonds. The way skeptics in the space take it is that they offer an outlet for a cbdc thats compatible with the existing banking system.

The treasury market is so big I would be surprised if that is a consideration but I could be wrong. There is $25tn notional outstanding and a lot of players in the market have been complaining about lack of liquidity for a while now so if Tether was to completely evapourate, having on large passive investor out of the picture should (I would think) make it better for everyone else if they notice at all.

Here’s more detail from the NY fed about treasury liquidity overall https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2023/10/how-ha...

The liquidity issue is on the buyer side, there arent enough buyers of government bonds, which is why weve now had a couple rocky bond auctions. If there wasnt enough bonds to buy then interest rates would be in decline as banks outbid each other.

Are they though? They say they are, but who knows?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com